Michael G. Kroposki - Page 13

                                               - 13 -                                                 

            101 T.C. 374, 386 (1993), affd. without published opinion 40 F.3d                         
            385 (5th Cir. 1994); Pollack v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108                             
            (1966), affd. 392 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1968); Wichita Terminal                              
            Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162                         
            F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).  We are thus left only with                                    
            petitioner’s testimony that some portion of the additional                                
            payment was in settlement of claims for section 104(a)(2)                                 
            damages.  Petitioner’s testimony that he made specific claims to                          
            Boehringer on grounds other than his ADEA claim and that those                            
            claims were settled pursuant to the final agreement was after-                            
            the-fact, self-serving, and uncorroborated.  We are unwilling to,                         
            and need not, accept that testimony at face value.  See, e.g.,                            
            Day v. Commissioner, 975 F.2d 534, 538 (8th Cir. 1992), affg. in                          
            part, revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1991-140; Liddy v. Commissioner,                           
            808 F.2d 312, 315 (4th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-107.                             
            Petitioner has failed to prove that Boehringer intended any of                            
            the additional payment to be section 104(a)(2) damages.  More                             
            generally, petitioner has failed to prove that any of the                                 
            additional payment constitutes section 104(a)(2) damages.                                 
                  In conclusion, petitioner has failed to prove that any of                           
            the payment constitutes section 104(a)(2) damages.  Respondent’s                          
            determination of a deficiency in tax is sustained.                                        

                                                            Decision will be entered                  
                                                      for respondent.                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  

Last modified: May 25, 2011